1) You said on multiple occasions that backwards compatibility is an important feature of C++. That feature comes at a cost, however (e.g. in language size and complexity). Do you think that at some point the cost of backward compatibility will outweigh the benefits? To put this in a context - several recent languages try to go into the system programming domain (D, Rust, Go). All quote dissatisfaction with C++ as (one of) the primary motivations (primary reasons being language complexity, poor support for parallelism, and long compile times). Can we hope the committee will be more aggressive in obsoleting old/broken features?
2) When will size_t be replaced by a signed type?
3) Your take on increased throughput of the committee and planed standardisation of many new libraries (graphics, asio, fs, etc.)